Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:37:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v6i487$13ejf$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
 <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
 <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@i2pn2.org>
 <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
 <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i1b9$12ktu$5@dont-email.me>
 <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 03:37:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1161839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gbzTVft/D/rCVG8xrmiR8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WTZm6wcOo6VuGQWIpJN/jLyiQkQ=
In-Reply-To: <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5728

On 7/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/24 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
>>>>>>>>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious that
>>>>>>>>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge proves that
>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't 
>>>>>>> understand that the x86 language says programs are deterministic, 
>>>>>>> and their behavior is fully establish when they are written, and 
>>>>>>> running or simulating them is only a way to observe that 
>>>>>>> behavior, and the only CORRECT observation of all the behavior, 
>>>>>>> so letting that operation reach its final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which you H doesn't meet, since the definition of "Correct 
>>>>> Simulation" here (as for most people) is a simulation that exactly 
>>>>> reproduces the behavior of the full program the input represents, 
>>>>> which means a simulaiton that doesn't abort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your H doesn't do that, or correctly determine what one of 
>>>>> those would do (since it would halt since you H returns 0) so you 
>>>>> CAN'T correctly predict that which doesn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he agress that your H, which is NOT a Halt Decider, is 
>>>>> correctly answering your non-halt-deciding question.  In other 
>>>>> words, it is a correct POOP decide.r
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is literally true that Ben agrees that the "if" statement
>>>> has been met.
>>>
>>> Same words, but different meanings.
>>>
>>> SO, NO
>>>
>>
>> He literally agrees with MY meanings that the "if" has
>> been fulfilled.
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>> ...
>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Yes, Ben agrees that 

*That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer